"Abortion is clearly not an individual issue or family issue" and it's "at minimum a town issue"... because why?
Because the individuals affected might come from different families and different places of the town? And
suddenly, everyone else, who isn't affected by Jennifer's abortion, in every other family throughout the whole town gets to have a say in Jennifer's abortion? I'm not following the leap of logic here. Please justify why everyone else automatically gets a say in the termination of Jennifer's pregnancy, but not in the termination of Jennifer's sexual relationship with Peter, who lives in an entirely different county or a different part of the town.
Are you really that ignorant of the Irish reality? Even
I know that the Irish law permits abortion if the pregnancy threatens the woman's life. The condition of the fetus isn't taken into account, but whether or not the woman could die
is taken into account. In the judgment in the
X Case, Finlay C.J. wrote: "... if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40,s.3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution." (
1)
It's not that the doctors can't tell when a woman's life is at risk in medical terms, they always publish those percentages in medical literature, so the doctors know something carries a ___% risk to a person's life. These "qualified professionals" don't use "feelings" to do their work, they use "measurements", this is a scientific discipline after all. If you want a strictly medical opinion, then a 0.1% risk of death is a risk of death, a 1% risk of death is a higher risk of death, a 10% risk of death is an even higher risk of death. That's what a doctor can tell you in their professional capacity.
What they can't tell you, however, is at what point exactly, does the medical risk become "a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk"
in legal terms. They can't tell whether a termination performed when there's a 1/100 chance the mother could die from continued pregnancy, would cause themselves legal troubles later on, should somebody else lodge a complaint that 1/100 isn't real and substantial enough for the termination. So naturally, many doctors would hesitate, when they're uncertain about the legal implications of a certain procedure. And they would procrastinate, until the woman's condition has deteriorated to such a point that no one would think of complaining the risk isn't great enough; then and only then, would they do the procedure. At that point, not only does the pregnancy pose a greater risk to the mother's life, the termination itself carries a greater risk too, due to the more advanced pregnancy. As all odds are stacked against the woman, it's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes.
It's nice that you're "sure" a doctor's own opinion is "good enough" to prevent them from falling victim to any potential legal issues surrounding abortion, I'm afraid the doctors themselves and most people in Ireland aren't so sure about this. As observed in the judgment of
A, B and C v. Ireland: "While a constitutional provision of this scope is not unusual, no criteria or procedures have been subsequently laid down in Irish law, whether in legislation, case law or otherwise, by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty as to its precise application." (
2) The resonance of that sentiment can be heard in most discussions on this topic:
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, etc. And, of course, once again in the report of the "expert group" on the issue that was published recently:
here.
International treaties such as The European Convention on Human Rights, The Treaties of the European Union, The Treaty of Lisbon, are binding agreements. Rulings of the European courts are binding on the states. They're all part of international law.
Define what you mean by "alive". Perhaps I'll know which "period" you're talking about then.
Also, do you support abortion (on demand) all the way up to the point where the fetus is "alive"?
You seem to think that "getting born" should be treated like some sort of "equal opportunity pony ride", where everyone "alive" should get a chance at being born, but once they've had that chance, they should be willing to give up their seat for someone else. Which begs the question:
why should "getting born" be treated as an "equal opportunity pony ride" to begin with?
No clue what you're even thinking when you say "abortion has nothing to do with human rights". Again, what on earth do you think human rights are? Take a read at the court documents from various countries regarding the abortion debate, the central arguments have always been about human rights.
In case you've forgotten, before other families can take care of the children, the women would have to actually
complete their pregnancies, first. Abortion takes place during that time, when the pregnancy hasn't completed, and other families can't just take care of the "children". If a woman can be
compelled by threat of arrest & imprisonment, to loan her body for others (e.g. fetus, adoptive family) to use for
their own benefits, which are unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations -- that's in effect (reproductive)
slavery.
The mother has always been the one who "determines" whether or not her fetus lives or dies: abortion isn't the only time a mother makes a choice on its behalf, childbirth is another time a mother makes a choice that's solely her own, without consultation whatsoever with the fetus. The fetus
never chose to live, or die. Either way, that decision is made by someone else.
No state
in the modern era is going to legalise rape, or bullying, and no state
in the modern era is going to legalise (reproductive) slavery. Do you see the point of those examples,
now?
This has dragged on much longer than I had anticipated, when I first brought up the slavery example. The Irish ban on abortion is in fact what you've called a "dark age" concept, the page of history has already turned on this issue, yet some people seem completely oblivious of that reality. Just like the Creationists who sincerely believe their opinions on evolution aren't ignorant.
There's no such thing as "people get what they voted for" on abortion, there's only "the majority get what they voted for"; the Irish people who voted against the ban did
not get what they voted for, and they are the ones who will suffer as a result of the ban, not the majority. If you truly want structure, then perhaps you should start caring about right/wrong, because an unadaptive majority rule that is wrong can lead to the destruction of your precious "structure".
